• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights News Contracts Stack
Main image for Federal Circuit Rules Launching a Website or Other Advertising Alone Is Not Service Mark “Use”
Publications|Alert

Federal Circuit Rules Launching a Website or Other Advertising Alone Is Not Service Mark “Use”

Intellectual Property Alert

3.4.2015

Launching a website or other advertising alone is not enough to prove “use” of a service mark. You must actually render the services you claim in connection with your service mark before you file your federal use-based registration application or statement of use. The Federal Circuit has ruled that use in commerce exists only if the services offered in connection with the mark were actually provided. This answers the frequently asked question of what constitutes use in commerce of a service mark. Attorneys in McCarter’s Intellectual Property group have significant experience with trademark prosecution and disputes, and are available to discuss the implications of this important decision for your IP strategy.


For the first time, the Federal Circuit directly addressed whether the advertising or offering of a service, without the actual provision of the service, constitutes use in commerce for a service mark. Couture v. Playdom, Inc., No. 2014-1480 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2015). In affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) cancellation of the service mark PLAYDOM, the court held that the mark was void ab initio because the associated services were not rendered as of the use-based application’s filing date even though the mark owner had used the mark to advertise the services by launching a website, and that such advertising alone does not constitute use in commerce.

David Couture filed an application in May 2008 to register the service mark PLAYDOM claiming actual use in commerce under Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act. The mark was registered in January 2009. A month later, the game development company Playdom, Inc. (“Playdom”), which was acquired by Walt Disney & Co. to expand Disney’s online social network gaming presence, filed an application to register the identical mark, and the application was denied based on Couture’s registration. Playdom petitioned to cancel Couture’s registration, arguing that it was invalid because Couture had not used the mark in commerce as of the date of his application. See Playdom, Inc. v. Couture, Cancellation No. 92051115 (Feb. 3, 2014). Couture admitted that he did not actually render services to a customer until March 2010. He had merely launched the website playdominc.com to advertise his services. The TTAB cancelled Couture’s registration for the reason given by Playdom.

In Couture v. Playdom, Inc., No. 2014-1480 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2015), Couture appealed the TTAB’s decision, and the Federal Circuit tackled the question of “whether the offering of a service, without the actual provision of a service, is sufficient to constitute use in commerce under Lanham Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127.” Section 45 provides that a service mark is used in commerce “when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State” (emphasis added). The court affirmed the TTAB’s decision, finding no evidence that Couture rendered the services to any customer before 2010. Citing decisions in the Second, Fourth and Eighth Circuits, the court noted that other circuits have interpreted this statutory provision as requiring the actual rendering of services.

The Playdom decision underscores the importance of strategic decision making in seeking trademark registrations. Couture may have been better served by filing an intent-to-use application under Section 1(b) as part of a comprehensive strategy to protect his rights in the mark. With an intent-to-use application, the May 2008 filing date would have been Couture’s “constructive use” date for purposes of nationwide priority, allowing him to extend his time to file a statement of use until he actually rendered the services in 2010. The Federal Circuit’s decision highlights the importance of thinking critically about one’s IP strategy, both offensively and defensively. With extensive experience in trademark prosecution and disputes, McCarter & English, LLP can advise you on an appropriate IP strategy based on your particular circumstances. Please contact a member of McCarter’s Intellectual Property group to discuss.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Carissa L. Rodrigue
Carissa L. Rodrigue

Associate

Related Services

Intellectual Property
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel